Republicans are feeling pretty good about the midterms. Prognosticators don’t laugh anymore when they talk about taking back Congress.

But while wind at one’s back is a good thing, cash in the bank would be better, and on that score Republicans are lagging behind. Their candidates have raised less than half the $84 million that experts estimate it will take to seriously threaten the Democratic majority in the House. The situation at the National Republican Congressional Committee is even bleaker.

In 2008, the committee spent more than $34 million on advertising and other assistance to candidates, according to Federal Election Commission reports. Today, the NRCC has a grand total of $4 million in the bank — and that is after one of its best fundraising months. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, by contrast, has about $18 million.

Overall, the Democratic Party committees combined have outraised their Republican counterparts significantly, bringing in $442,885,585 since last January, compared with $255,000,681 for the respective GOP committees. The Democrats’ $51 million in cash is also significantly larger than the Republicans’ $34 million.

In recent cycles, such disparities have become the norm for the Democratic Senate and House committees. A major difference this year, however, is the Democratic National Committee’s ability to keep pace with the Republican National Committee, which has dominated the fundraising world for decades.

In part, the improved DNC position stems from the election of President Barack Obama, which gives the committee more star power to draw donors. Democrats’ takeover of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue also makes their requests for support more compelling to those with work before Congress or the White House.

But the Democrats have also benefited from a less-than-stellar year by the RNC, which has seen its donation rates decline after losing the White House and as tension mounts between the party’s major donors and RNC Chairman Michael Steele over his spending and style of leadership.

To have a reasonable shot at winning the 40 seats they need to retake control of the House, the GOP needs to make a minimum of about 60 Democratic and open seats competitive, according to David Wasserman, the House analyst with The Cook Political Report.

The average cost of a winning House race in 2008 was $1.4 million, according to the Campaign Finance Institute. That translates into the $84 million Republican candidates, overall, need to raise to seriously threaten Democratic majorities in the fall.

But as of Feb. 25, the 390 Republicans vying to challenge an incumbent had collected $41 million — and much of that money will be spent in dozens of contested primaries.

Among the GOP’s top-tier candidates, the so-called Young Guns, there is good and bad news. In Ohio, former Rep. Steve Chabot, who is fighting to get his job back in a rematch, has $612,000 in the bank, compared with $762,000 for his nemesis, Democratic Rep. Steve Driehaus. But in Florida, GOP challenger Allen West’s bank balance of $707,000 amounts to less than a third of Democrat Rep. Ron Klein’s $2.4 million.

A bright spot for Republicans is the open-seat races. The Republican candidates vying for those seats have raised a total of $24 million, compared with about $16 million raised by Democratic candidates. But even that good news comes with a caveat: There are a lot more Republicans, at 113, running in those races than Democrats, at 70.

The Senate picture is also a challenging one for Republicans.

In order to retake control, the GOP needs to defeat or capture 10 Democratic seats — and not lose any of its own. The average cost in 2008 of a winning Senate race was nearly $9 million.

Thus far, the 51 Republican candidates hoping to challenge Democratic incumbents have raised a grand total of $20 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. As in the House, the open-seat Senate contests are more competitive, with Democratic hopefuls raising a combined total of $52 million, compared with $55 million by Republican candidates.

Another ray of hope for the GOP on the Senate side is the surprisingly robust performance by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which has nearly $11 million in the bank — just a few million shy of its Democratic counterpart. In 2008, the NRSC doled out $40 million to boost candidates in tough races, FEC records show.

In the face of GOP efforts to retake the House, the money advantage “is the line of defense for the Democrats, and it’s a pretty good line,” said Wasserman. “The problem is, as the number of districts in play expands, that advantage diminishes.”

Given the unruly mood of the electorate, generally, and, more specifically, the negative feelings about health care reform, Republicans don’t have to match Democrats to make gains. They simply need to raise enough resources to stay competitive and get their candidates heard.

That’s what Democrats did in 2006 when they regained control of the House, even as they were significantly outspent by the opposition.

After fighting through the ups and downs of some tough election cycles, “all of our guys will be ready,” said Ryan Rudominer, a spokesman for the DCCC.

But Paul Lindsay, the NRCC press secretary, shot back: “At the end of the day, any advantage the Democrats may have in fundraising is far outweighed by the unpopular agenda they are carrying into November.”

Still, Lindsay acknowledged that his party has faced some unique fundraising challenges this cycle and is playing catch-up.

Republican donors emerged from the 2008 presidential campaign exhausted and discouraged by the party’s performance, prompting many to sit out the early fundraising season. At the same time, the Democrats’ ascendancy created a windfall of donations from business trade groups and corporations seeking to offset years of donations to the GOP by giving to the new majority.

Moreover, the economic downturn had a disproportionate impact on the small-business donors who traditionally provide a steady stream of midsize checks to Republican committees — which can total up to big money over the two-year cycle, Lindsay noted.

And after eight years of the Bush administration, the Republican committees also are struggling to unlock the secret to hosting events that can draw large donors without a White House headliner.

Last summer, the NRCC and NRSC thought they’d landed former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as the speaker for what traditionally had been a major fundraiser featuring President George W. Bush. In the end, they had to settle for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and the event fell short of its targeted haul.

Finally, the sheer number of Republican candidates vying to challenge Democrats can hinder early fundraising efforts. “Which of the 10 Republicans in Arkansas does a donor write a check to?” observed Jennifer Duffy, The Cook Political Report’s Senate expert. In contrast, Duffy noted, former Republican Rep. Rob Portman in Ohio doesn’t have a primary challenger, and he has a significant advantage over Democrats vying for the open seat.

But Massachusetts Republican Sen. Scott Brown’s special-election victory has begun to reset the environment, several Republicans said. Donors now see a path to victory, and that’s motivating more giving.

The two Republican congressional committees experienced their best fundraising months in January, after the Brown victory. The NRCC is planning a major event March 23 featuring Fox News talk show host Sean Hannity, which it hopes will give it a third month of strong — and bankable — cash.

Winning one or both of the two House special elections this month in the generally blue states of Pennsylvania and Hawaii could add to the momentum started by Brown.

“There is a realization that we do need to close that fundraising gap,” said Lindsay. “But we are confident we can close that gap and have the resources we need to be competitive. We know we will never get to parity.”